Wednesday, December 07, 2011

Rhubarb Patch: Swirls and Eddies in GOP primary crosscurrents

Today, veteran political strategist and former executive director of the Illinois Republican Party Christine Dudley (right) joins me for an e-mail back and forth about the race for the presidency.

To: ChristineFrom: Eric

Three months ago, I saw no way that your party’s pre-eminent gasbag, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, could win the presidential nomination. He was stuck at about 5 percent support in the polls and lacked money and ground organization.

Now, I see no way for him to lose the nomination. He’s not only surged to the top in national polls of GOP voters, but he’s got a comfortable lead in Iowa and South Carolina, two of first three tests on the primary-caucus calendar. And he’s fast closing the gap on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, the other test.

Republicans have long been lukewarm on Romney. RealClearPolitics’ national polling averages since November 2010 show him drifting in the horse latitudes of popularity, always somewhere between 16 and 26 percent support despite all his money, his broad resume, his middle-of-the-road appeal and his comparative polish on the stump.

Yet I observe, with amusement and dismay, that the “Anybody But Mitt” sentiment is so strong that, for a time, Herman Cain and Rick Perry led in the polls and even Donald Trump was tied for the lead.

Trump and Cain are now out of the picture, Perry is babbling his way toward the bottom and the other hopefuls have never had much traction, yet this ABM sentiment remains strong. Now it seems destined to continue to coalesce around the erudite, eloquent yet insufferably condescending Gringrich. (Inset image on the right is a screen grab from RCP's time-line graph of national polling averages from 11/20/2011 ---when Gingrich, shown in green, was at 20.3 percent and Romney, shown in purple was at 22 percent-- to 12/6/2011-- when Gingrich was at 31.2 percent and Romney was at 20.3 percent)

Ask me again in three months, but today I see no way Gingrich can beat President Obama next November. Do you?

To: EricFrom: Christine

Well, Eric, I agree with you. Three months ago I did not see a path for former Speaker Gingrich to win the nomination for all the reasons that you state. That being said, three months is a lifetime in politics. I have learned predicting the unpredictable of presidential politics is always a recipe for embarrassment.

Four years ago after a robust round of debates amongst the 8 candidates in the Democratic contest, the pundits were declaring Senator Clinton the nominee and the junior Senator from Illinois was not predicted to fare well in the Iowa caucuses. You may recall John Edwards, because of his populist appeal, was the one expected to have the strongest advantage in stopping Clinton in Iowa.

There is another factor that has to be considered. I will try not to go too deep in the weeds, but the change in the 2012 RNC’s rules regarding the awarding of delegates could be crucial. The new rules provide for the proportional allocation of delegates. This is similar to the 2008 Democratic rules that extended the competition for their nomination.

Discipline, organization & financing remain dominant factors, but the new GOP rules give all the candidates an opportunity to put points on the board. (Sidebar: Iowa is a beauty contest, no delegates are awarded at the caucus)

All that being considered, the answer to your question is yes. I do see the former Speaker having the ability to beat this incumbent President. Newt’s communication skills, innovative policy solutions, and, yes his ego have propelled him to a frontrunner status.

But a lot can happen between today and January 3rd ...especially with Newt.

To ChristineFrom: Eric

True, Gingrich is the joker in the GOP deck— a wild card who is undisciplined, provocative, opportunistic and by turns appalling and compelling.

But he’s been around a long time. Republican caucus-goers and primary voters are already aware of his moral and ethical lapses, his policy flip flops and his willingness to entertain weird ideas. This makes him all but scandal proof in the coming weeks.

Contrary to your view, I consider him a lousy communicator – preachy, smug, didactic and unnecessarily inflammatory –and I find his policy solutions not so much innovative as daffy. The American electorate will reject Gingrich next November if the Republican electorate doesn’t have an “uh-oh” moment and beat them to it.

My assumption that they won’t have such a moment is based on three ideas:

1. They see Romney as uninspiring and inauthentic, and they see libertarian firebrand Rep. Ron Paul, the only other Republican hopeful with a pulse in the polls, as unelectable.

2. It’s late in the game – by the first week of December four years ago, Obama was, in fact, leading in the major polls in Iowa.

3. I forget the third assumption. No, I just remembered – it’s that your party has become too fundamentally crazy to give a second look to Jon Huntsman, a candidate whose politics I don’t particularly care for but whose intellect, resume and bearing are first rate. He may not be an ace card, but he’s at least a solid jack and, I suspect, the challenger Obama fears most.

What assumptions are you making these days?

To: EricFrom: Christine

Risking the wrath of my 7th grade teacher Sister Mary Esther who always pointed out, “When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me,” I will move forward with my response.

The 2012 general election ultimately comes down to five R’s: Redistricting, Romney, Recovery, Recession, and Romance.

Time to bring back Tim Russert’s white board. The conservative leaning western and southern states have benefited from redistricting, increasing the number of congressional seats that determine their votes in the Electoral College. States that went for Obama could flip to the GOP candidate.When all the dust has settled, Romney will be the nominee. History is our guide to this assumption. Republicans seem to be pre-disposed to this pattern, exemplified by Reagan, H.W. Bush, Dole and McCain.

My theory is that we are winding down the “speed dating” phase. Flirting with the bad boys, the pretty girl, and the class contrarian are natural. When faced with the reality of who is the best suitor, the “steady Eddie”, waiting in the wings is the one you choose.

This election is a referendum on President Obama. The passion that burned in 2008 has been reduced to embers. The guy voters fell in love with hasn’t put food on the table and has cleaned out the savings account. It’s the time of reckoning that comes in any relationship. He will use any sign of economic recovery as a bouquet of flowers. If however, the recession continues, there will not be a happy anniversary party next November in Grant Park.

How Romney looks to me doesn’t matter much, of course. But that’s also apparently how he looks to Republican voters, to whom he has yet to explain why, aside from naked political expediency, his views have shifted right on nearly every issue.

Perhaps he’ll be reassuring on this point Dec. 18 when he sits for an interview with Fox News Sunday, his first appearance on such a show in 650 days according to “Scared Mittless,” the Huntsman campaign’s site that chronicles Romney’s aversion to the media.

The 2012 general presidential election will be a choice, not a referendum. And it will come down to the one big T: Trust

Which of the major party candidates, flawed though they may be, will voters trust more to guard their interests, advance their values, and promote peace in the world and prosperity at home?

The hard core partisans have already made up their minds, but a vast, decisive swath of moderate and independent voters are still waiting to hear more, to contrast the vision and character of the nominees and then, with hope or resignation in their hearts, to cast their ballots.

Before I turn it back to you for a final word, I want to thank you, with Wally Cleaver-like sincerity, for the spirited exchange. You’re as formidable in this format as you are on radio.

And to ask you directly: Why not Huntsman?

To: EricFrom: Christine

Keeping with our dating theme, Huntsman seems to suffer from online dating syndrome. He looks great on paper, but there’s not spark necessary to develop a relationship. The trust factor that you mention may also be at play here. He ‘s never been able to overcome the fact he served in the Obama administration. I believe that he has a lot to offer. But he’ll have to continue to work at building up his GOP cred.

You’re correct that the big T is a big factor, but the President has lost the trust and confidence of the American public. I know that may be difficult to understand sitting in the Tower overlooking Michigan Avenue in the city where he still enjoys a healthy approval rating. The rest of America, or even the rest of Illinois does not share that view. To wit, in October a statewide public poll conducted by We Ask America had his approval rating below 50%.

I don’t mean to suggest that Obama will not win here in Illinois, but the numbers underscore the volatility and vulnerability that exist even with home field advantage. Recent polls in Indiana and Pennsylvania have his approval rating down to 38% and 35%. That is a total of 31 Electoral Votes that he took in 2008.

The lust and the trust are gone.

Perhaps, Mitt Romney (left) is a bit like Ward Cleaver (right). He’s not the flashiest dad on the block but you knew he was there for you in a crisis and you knew he would always guide you in the right direction.

Republicans are sometimes thought of as the party of the establishment. But the party’s leadership has spent much of the last three decades cultivating distrust among its rank and file about the legitimacy of these institutions, particularly the government and the news media. This may have contributed to the party’s electoral successes. But it’s also possible that Republican elites have neutered their ability to influence how voters decide on a candidate. If so, they may end up with Mr. Gingrich rather than Mr. Romney.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It's not that the party is too "fundamentally crazy" to give a second look to Huntsman; it's that Huntsman has run a fundamentally crazy campaign. Here is a smart two-term governor with the most conservative record of any governor in this race and he blew it by running away from his accomplishments. He is my second favorite candidate behind you-know-who, but I have to admit that his strategy was so awful that I question whether he has the judgment to be president despite all of the good things he did as governor. It's too bad because he does have a lot to offer.

I think that Christine is spot on about Huntsman. I also believe she could be right about Romney. Gingrich is another train wreck waiting to happen, much like the rest of the pack.

Romney also gets points, in my opinion, on his rejection of the Trump debate. The Republican race has already assumed the aspect of a circus, Trump's debate confirms it. Moderates, which seem to be the crowd Christine represents, will not be attracted to Gingrich's smug, and ever changeable, positions. How are they different from Romney's?

--The strange thing is that everyone has seen Newt's dirty laundry and STILL he surges ahead, so the problem is not about being deceived by Newt, but why is Mitt stuck at 25%???? Clearly the people in the polls are weighing the good and the bad, the baggage and the flaws, the history of the candidates and seem to be saying that Newt's warts are smaller than Mitt's warts..... and all.... and that Newt's "ideas" are more interesting to listen to than Mitt's "ideas".... and that Newt "seems more like them" than Mitt does... go figure? This process is alive and moving and changeable and tomorrow may be different, but if the trend line holds this pattern, uninterrupted by some dramatic events, Newt will prevail.

I think EZ and many other liberal critics of Gingrich are too easily dismissing his chances against Obama based on his baggage and his "smug, and ever changeable, positions," as Wendy (above) noted.

I eat at the lunch table with a number of conservatives, and they do not see his presumed personality flaws. He is an excellent talker, and glib in a positive sense, and while I see something pseudo intellectual about him, most people do not see it. I think Gingrich will be a much more formidable opponent than many liberals think.

I believe Gingrich is too much the hypocrite for even conservatives to swallow, I hear some are expressing this very thought. However, if our favorite conservative on this blog will accept him, I might be worried.

--I agree with Robert Pruter's point that Newt's chances shouldn't be dismissed so easily. However, I also agree with Wendy that Gingrich is tough for conservatives to swallow. I am very uncomfortable with Romney or Gingrich as the nominee. Yes, it's realistic that it could come down to a choice between the two of them, but I'm trying not to think about it.

Romney is selling conservatism just like he'd sell a business planning idea, but his actual governing record must be given greater weight, and it isn't good at all. Besides, if Republicans don't like him, why should independents? Newt is creative and very, very bright but his moral character is a big concern and his record as Speaker is nothing to write home about. Also, although Newt doesn't lack thoughtful solutions to problems, he throws out as many bad ideas as good ones.

Meanwhile, I see some very interesting developments in Iowa and I'm holding out hope that a certain principled, conservative/libertarian candidate with cross-over appeal could pull off an upset.

Newt Gingrich a windbag and a hypocrite? Any worse than Mr. "change we can believe in"? And remember how the liberals kept saying "character doesn't matter" about a certain President that they favored? I rest my case.

Radigan - "Character" if defined specifically as "sexual behavior" matters significantly less to Democrats than to Republicans because they're not the party claiming to be the "Family Values" party. Democrats weren't too worried about Clinton's BJ because it was consensual and the cheating issue was between him and his wife. Newt's "character" issues go far beyond the serial cheating. The two biggest factors for him were the cruelty of divorcing his first two wives when they were at low points and the hypocrisy of doing so while prosecuting the president for a consensual BJ.

Q: After how many years since the terror bombing of the Oklahoma Federal Building -- 168 dead, including 19 children under the age of six -- did it become acceptable to depict multiple exploding federal buildings in a campaign ad for a Republican presidential candidate?

In 2007 I found myself during a work conference of very nice, very highly educated mid-western Republicans. And not just any Republicans but people involved with their various mid-western states party politics. So since I am an ardent Democrat and didn't want to get in any debates with these super nice people I asked them for their appraisal of who the likely nominee would be for their party. Romney seemed like a good bet. Their answer took my breath away. 'Oh no. He's you know, not a Christian." Huh? As a Jew, I'd never even realized this was an issue. A Mormon's not a Christian? I had no idea that this was how some people felt. That was a huge eye-opener for me and I've always viewed the "anyone but Mitt" attitude I've seen since through the lens of that experience.

Gingrich's moral character is in question for the reasons that you stated. While I don't consider it a disqualifying factor, I do consider it a main reason why I would have trouble supporting him to win the nomination. Clinton was rightly criticized for his indiscretions. However, he was not prosecuted for them. He was prosecuted for the criminal act of perjury, which is a felony.

When Newt was in office he became the original obstructionist where he would not even listen to anything the Dems said. I was glad when he left office. Afterwards, he started talking where he criticised both parties and he sounded incredibly reasonable with his ideas and proposals to where my thought was where was this Newt when he was in office. Now I'm not sure what to make of him. If he gets back in as CIC will he stonewall the other party or will he work for the betterment of our country? I'm just not sure. I may go with no career politicians and vote all incumbents out. Career Pols are killing us.

@Dienne, in regards to Clinton.... even though it was consensual, it was an abuse of power. He was in a position of power and abused that power. Monica was a niave intern who worked for him. I don't think that Clinton is more or less morally bankrupt than Gingrich. It only makes me think that some people abuse the power of their job and use that as an excuse to take whatever they want. Gingrich is the same boat on that level.

---All of you newt-basher's and obama supporters are just trying to avoid facing reality - that Republicans are going to win big....in 2016.

ZORN REPLY -- If I had to make a guess about 2106 -- an odd expression, since it's hard to think of a circumstance in which anyone HAS to make a guess like that -- but I'd guess you're right...that the GOP candidate, probably a governor, will beat whomever the Democrats nominate. Total toss-up as far as which party will control Congress.

Unless he makes a dramatic move in a hurry, Huntsman has proved himself unworthy of conducting a 2016 campaign. It's amazing how bad this guy has screwed up. Even Rick Perry, who came in completely unprepared and embarrassed himself as a result, hasn't been as big of a disappointment. And this is coming from someone who would gladly support Huntsman if he had any traction whatsoever right now.

While I'm at it, let me clear up a couple of popular misconceptions about Huntsman. First of all, no one in the GOP really cares that he served in the Obama administration. At worst, it's a slight negative but it's nothing compared to the negatives that you can easily come up with for every other candidate. Second, Huntsman's record is so conservative that a few departures (cap-and-trade, drivers' licenses for illegals, etc.) can easily be forgiven. His main problem is that he failed to discuss his record and his debate responses were littered with lame jokes, pop culture references, and non sequiturs. It's completely acceptable to be the guy who says that we can't police the world and we have to believe in science (both completely obvious observations) IF you are able to connect on issues that primary voters care about.

Sorry for the extended rant but the way Huntsman conducted his campaign drives me nuts. Here is a qualified, conservative, rational, scandal-free candidate at a time when we need these qualities the most, and he can't get his act together to save his life (or, rather, his campaign). It is so frustrating to watch this waste of potential (and same goes for Perry).

It still comes down to being able to effectively communicate your message. Huntsman doesn't have the talent, or the ability to choose the right people to run an effective campaign. In my opinion, he's acting more like a person jockeying for vice-president.

Perry hasn't any potential outside of Texas, he's a complete failure as a national candidate.

It is obvious that Mr. Zorn is not a supporter of Mr. Gingrich or of Mr. Gingrich's solutions to the problems that confront this nation. That being said, why does Mr. Zorn find it necessary to resort to such childish behavior as calling Mr. Gingrich names? Surely, a higher level of discourse should be expected of a University of Michigan graduate in discussing policy differences.

ZORN REPLY -- I couldn't even begin to top Gingrich when it comes to slinging the bile.

So your course of action is to retaliate in kind to the perceived "bile" by slinging invectives of your own? That's taking the high road. Let me posit another reason that many columnists adhere to the "Jerry Springer" theory of writing: engaging in a reasoned discourse might not sell as many papers.

Nice hypothetical thought, but doesn't apply much on the (still) free COS blog we're all participating in, here. Any invective he slings here is just flying out the window and splatting on the ground. No newspaper purchase involved.

When there's an incumbent running, even one as supposedly vulnerable as Obama, his opponents tend not to be drawn from the top ranks. The really formidable ones tend to wait until the next no-incumbent race. We've seen that in Chris Christie this year.

ZORN REPLY -- And I'll remind you again. Obviously I can't make cash wagers with readers on news events. But why don't you put your real full name and hometown in your posting, then I'll allow you to taunt me if your prediction comes true, even as I'll taunt you if it doesn't. Real, full name. Real hometown or neighborhood. Let's go yourself, "R."

I think that the Huntsman '12 campaign is almost the mirror opposite of the Romney '08 campaign. In '08, Mitt Romney had a very focused, conservative message and told GOP primary voters what they wanted to hear. He ran a pretty good campaign just as he's doing now. His problems were the flip-flopping, his record as governor, and his personality. By contrast, Huntsman is reasonably consistent, has an outstanding record, and a fairly likeable personality (his ill-conceived pop culture references notwithstanding). Huntsman's problems are that he has not campaigned on his record and he hasn't seized a message that resonates with voters. Other than citing his expertise on China, Huntsman hasn't found any issues with which to identify himself (like Romney did in '08 with his business/organizational experience). What do they have in common? Well, they're both Mormons (although Mitt seems a lot more Mormon-y) and they both give well-reasoned, articulate answers to questions. That's about it.

Huntsman's problem is strategy, which he could have corrected (and maybe he still can, who knows?). Mitt's problem was and is Mitt, and there's not much he can do about that.

I agree with you regarding both Huntsman and Perry. That's a very concise and accurate analysis.

I'll add that those who complain about the weak field have a point but too often they lament that Daniels, Christie, and Ryan aren't running. My counter to that is that all three of those guys look great on paper, but no better than Pawlenty, Perry, and Huntsman, and look at what happened to the latter three when they were tested by the primary process. The point is that it's practically impossible to tell what will happen to even the most seasoned politicians with the best records when they are put to the test.

When I ponder the Family Values folks' seeming embrace of Gingrich, all I can conclude is that he's lucky that his skeletons are out of the closet already and have been for awhile. (Well, at least the ones we know about.) He hasn't had to answer for them in a hastily-arranged news conference during the campaign. Why, it's old news. Otherwise (well, even still,) for the party that's all about the "defense of marriage" to back a guy of his less-than-exemplary marital history would be, uh, hypocritical. And surely that couldn't be the case.

Mr JM, I wouldn't be bringing up what or what isn't in the GOP ads when it was LBJ who used literally used the nuclear option against Goldwater.

Pan: If I were Obama, I would be worried about facing Gingrich in a debate because Gingrich will rip him apart. Obama is less than impressive when speaking extemporaneously, on top of which he has to defend a very less than impressive record.

Short story: My brother in law is a member of the East Bank Club, which Obama also was in 04, and he ran into Obama before he faced Alan Keyes in the Senate debate. Obama confessed he was worried about debating him, and sure enough Keyes ran over him. Didn't matter back then, of course, but on the big stage things are different.

ZORN REPLY -- If you think Keyes "ran over" Obama when they debated, then perhaps you will indeed conclude, should Gingrich win the nomination, that he ripped Obama apart after they debate.
As I've noted here before, I covered the Keyes/Obama debate in Springfield and saw the other ones and no, Keyes was neither the better speaker not debater. He's an eloquent chatterbox who spins sugar-crystal arguments, but Obama looked much more senatorial and much smarter, calmer and pragmatic.

@MCN - I beg to differ. I seem to remember that when Obama took on the entire Republican caucus in a filmed extemporaneous debate over his Health Care initiative, he had them for breakfast - they looked foolish in comparison, because they had to resort to sound bites that he deftly flicked away. If I remember correctly, the Repubs were so shaken they vowed never to go mano-a-mano with him in an unscripted, public, "open forum" again. Or perhaps I am I mis-remembering things . . . .

MOPerina, Monica was a "naive intern" Come on. She certainly was not. Naive interns dont' lift up their skirts to show the boss their thongs as Monica says she did. (And I love how she testifed that even after she did that Clinton asked her if it was ok if he kissed her.)

She also said that she wasn't promised anything and wan't expecting anything from the President in terms of jobs or opportunities. Other than the opportunity to be able to say she had an affair with a U.S. President. Clinton's actions were scummy but I just don't see any "abuse of power."

Buster, I watched Obama act like a law professor and treat a group of United States Senators who were far more experienced than he as if they were his students. He looked like a presiumptuous fool. You are in fact misremembering things, and it's not as if he's had his way with them since then. "Deftly?"

Eric, I cannot help conclude that you were under the influence of incipient hopium at the time. Obama is not as smart as you guys think he is, but we can't be really sure because we never did get the chance to see his LSAT scores and grades from Columbia.

I agree with you that we need a president who can do the job but that doesn't mean we should ignore any candidate's moral character. I don't think it should be the determinative factor but it matters a lot. The president will be representing the American people and making important decisions. I regret the media's intrusion into people's private lives and I understand that everyone makes terrible mistakes. However, if Newt is the right person to lead the country, it should be in spite of his past mistakes and not because they were ignored.

A thoughtful dialogue here, as usual. As a conservative, I am no fan of Newt. A smug, condescending know-it-all? Yup. A better answer than his Democratic opponent in 2012? Absolutely!
I'd take Romney or Huntsman over Gingrich, but I would pull any of those 3 out of a hat, and happily welcome them to the White House over President Obama.

Newt is to politics as Frank Lloyd Wright was to architecture. I'll keep that in mind going forward.

A portion of the public "wants a President who can do the job," true enough. But among Republicans, there are many who won't settle for that. A portion wants one they'd like to have a beer with. And evidently, from what I've read, a not insignificant portion wants one who's not a Mormon. I find it hard to believe that such a big percentage would careen from Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Newt simply because a guy's a flip-flopper. Of traits that those alternatives all share, competence doesn't come quickly to mind. Yes, yes, I know -- Romney's not conservative enough, either, unlike that stand-up guy Newt.

I'm sure very few people care if their President is someone they can have a beer with, since hardly anybody expects to have a beer with one. I'm also sure there are plenty of Democrats as well who hate certain groups of people too.

@Thomas Radigan - I'm not convinced that Newt is the right person to lead the country, so my answer is "we'll see."

@Jakash - I think the Mormon thing is important to a small fraction of GOP voters. I think the much bigger factor is that Mitt doesn't come across as a particularly honest or likeable guy. Add those personality traits to the fact that his four years as Massachusetts governor were less than stellar whether compared to Perry and Huntsman who governed conservative states, or Pawlenty and Christie who governed more liberal states, and Mitt has a real problem.

ZORN REPLY -- From the WaPo's Chris Cilizza today: QUOTE --
New polls in Iowa suggest Romney’s Mormon religion continues to be a sticking point among all-important evangelical Christians there. And that’s bad news for a Romney campaign that is trying desperately to prevent Newt Gingrich from scoring a big victory in the state’s caucuses. --UNQUOTE

ZORN REPLY -- From the WaPo's Chris Cilizza today: QUOTE --
New polls in Iowa suggest Romney’s Mormon religion continues to be a sticking point among all-important evangelical Christians there. And that’s bad news for a Romney campaign that is trying desperately to prevent Newt Gingrich from scoring a big victory in the state’s caucuses. --UNQUOTE

GREG J REPLY -- Fair rebuttal. I should have pointed out that a small percentage of voters, from a national perspective, can have an outsized impact on certain key primary states.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.